🏳️‍⚧️ FAQs 🏳️‍⚧️ Based on legal advice from a team of equalities lawyers, including a KC, we answer some of the pressing questions raised by the Supreme Court. The law is uncertain – but it’s almost certainly been misstated by the EHRC and ministers. goodlaw.social/bf2d17 - ThreadSky

goodlawproject.bsky.social • 5 days ago

🏳️‍⚧️ FAQs 🏳️‍⚧️

Based on legal advice from a team of equalities lawyers, including a KC, we answer some of the pressing questions raised by the Supreme Court.

The law is uncertain – but it’s almost certainly been misstated by the EHRC and ministers.
https://goodlaw.social/bf2d17

Comments

stoneycat.bsky.social•5 days ago

📌

james.claims•5 days ago

📌

hlongabaum.bsky.social•4 days ago

Could you elaborate on this bit please "Access to single-sex cubicle toilets (i.e. toilets that are in cubicles, rather than a separate lockable room) may depend upon whether you have a GRC because the meaning of “sex” in the Workplace (Health and Safety) Regulations 1992 may be governed by the GRA"

hlongabaum.bsky.social•4 days ago

...I'm not clear whether or not the cubicle toilet you are referring to could be within a women's toilet for example, or what constitutes a cubicle (floor to ceiling, or not?).

leedscat.bsky.social•5 days ago

To what extent, if any, could the ECHR resolve this for us. I have a GRC and feeling very vulnerable … the prospect of wearing a (virtual or real) ‘Transgender’ badge is horrifying. It wouldn’t surprise me if ID cards for trans women will be blue, and pink for trans men - that’s the level of cruelty

grayfaceghost.bsky.social•5 days ago

My view (ianal) is they can't. Even though Falkner's interpretation goes way beyond FWS, the ruling has still made it legal to segregate us so an uncaptured EHRC would have limited room to repair the damage.

The government will have to legislate, they're transphobic, so ECtHR it is.

leoniecooper.online•2 hours ago

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". - George Orwell, Animal Farm.

abigail-meanswell.bsky.social•4 days ago

toilets at work: the article says there should be sufficient single-sex cubicles, but the regulation does not say "single-sex" but "for men and women". In ordinary language I am a woman. I interpret that regulation as including me as a woman. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20/made

theohopkins.bsky.social•2 days ago

And I believe “I believe in God almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and in His Son, JC, etc, etc,…..”.

abigail-meanswell.bsky.social•4 days ago

And, here's part 2 of schedule 1: it refers to toilets for "males" and "females". I think I am female, and my GRC says I am female. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/schedule/1/part/II/made

f-o-r-t-i-t-e-r.bsky.social•5 days ago

Thank you.

This perfectly illustrates the "clarity" we now live with.

Having to solve a Rubik's cube puzzle of risk before one can pee is ludicrous.

Unworkable for organisations providing facilities so they don't get sued.

McSweeney et al, you f*cked up. Big time.

transbritannia.bsky.social•5 days ago

This fails to explain any potential offences. Of which there are none.

sarahjuk.bsky.social•5 days ago

For the avoidance of doubt, any reference to trans women also includes trans men.
Please GLP, correct this omission.

grayfaceghost.bsky.social•5 days ago

TL;DR is, we're going to have to obey or be prepared to take orgs to court, and even risk arrest. Even if that obeying involves potentially getting our heads kicked in.

I'm prepared to risk violence but I can't have a criminal record that would keep me from fleeing.

I need to think.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply